Gary Hallford v. J. Mendez, et al, No. 10-15381 (9th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 18 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GARY WILLIAM HALLFORD, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 10-15381 D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01068-PMPGWF v. MEMORANDUM * J. MENDEZ; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 8, 2011 ** Before: FARRIS, O SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Gary William Hallford, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his action alleging constitutional and state law violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. DBeam Ltd. P ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 974 n.2 (9th Cir. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2004) (denial of motion to remand); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A). We affirm. The district court properly denied Hallford s motion to remand the action to state court because Hallford alleged in his complaint violations of his federal constitutional rights and, thus, the action was subject to removal, see Lee v. Am. Nat l Ins. Co., 260 F.3d 997, 1002-03 & n.5 (9th Cir. 2001), and Hallford failed to raise timely objections to any defects in the removal requirements, see Vasquez v. N. Cnty. Transit Dist., 292 F.3d 1049, 1062 (9th Cir. 2002) (an objection to a defect in removal requirements must be made within thirty days of the filing of the removal notice or the objection is waived). The district court properly dismissed Hallford s amended complaint because Hallford failed to allege facts in support of his claims. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, a plaintiff must allege more than labels and conclusions or naked assertion[s] in support of his claims (citation omitted)). Hallford s remaining contentions, including those concerning the Attorney General s representation of defendants, are unpersuasive. Hallford s Notice of Inquiry is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 10-15381
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
